tv [untitled] April 17, 2012 8:00am-8:30am PDT
and all the wonderful participants. congratulations to the city and county of san francisco. thank you. [applause] >> for the meeting will come to order. good afternoon. this is the monday, april 16, 2012 meeting of the land use and economic develop committee for the san francisco board of supervisors. my name is eric mar, chair of the committee. tamara is malia cohen. to my left is supervisor scott wiener. our clerk is ms. alisa miller. >> please silence all cell phones and electronic devices. documents should be submitted to
the creek bottoms acted upon it will appear on april 24 board of supervisors agenda less inert -- otherwise stated. supervisor mar: thank you. in the two items. >> item number one, ordinance amending the sidewalk with of golden gate avenue and redwood valley. >> i do not have a presentation. actually, this is the location for the new puc headquarters building. 525 building gate. -- 525 golden gate. it was a suggestion from staff members at dpw, we were requested to widened sidewalks to improve pedestrian safety. we also included the pg&e vault underneath the sidewalk. we do not wanted encroaching
into the street. on redwood and polk street supervisor mar: street mar read what is the alley between mcallister and turk? >> yes. if you have questions, i am available. >> si no questions, let's open this up for public comment. is there anyone from the public who would like to speak? please come forward. it is a maximum of three minutes. you'll hear a tone 30 seconds before your time is up. >> good afternoon. my name is douglas yep and i have lived in san francisco for 60 years. i would like to speak in favor of this ordinance. i do what that blog very often, going to the federal building some -- so i think it does need a wider with. -- a wider width. since we're dealing with
economic development, i would like to make a suggestion of candlestick park, we can use it for the benefit of the bayview community. we should consider that in a future hearing before this committee. thank you. supervisor mar: thank you. is there anyone else a with like to speak. seeing none, public comment is closed. can we move this forward with a positive recommendation without objection? thank you. >> item number two, resolution approving the six months the designation of two temporary selling spaces on market street for street artists. supervisor mar: from the san francisco art commission, howard lazar. >> we are here for six spaces. supervisor mar: we only have the second item, which is on market street north side, spear to stuart st.. >> yes, but we should have six
spaces. supervisor mar: yes, but this is just item number two. i have to -- >> this is our 40th year in existence. on june 30, a saturday, we will be celebrating our 40th anniversary at justin herman plaza, adjacent to the sidewalk that i am talking about right here. if you can picture the sidewalk, that is the north sidewalk of market street at stuart, which is a dead-end, and spear street. in 1987, the board of supervisors awarded our program eight spaces west of where we are proposing, and then in 2009, the board awarded nine spaces east of where we are proposing. so with these six spaces, that would fill in the gap right there. as you know, it is an enormously wide sidewalk. you can very easily contained these six spaces.
what is the reason for it? well, the justin herman plaza is so popular for the street cards. they have a lottery there every morning at 6:00 a.m. typically, you make about 150 artists show up for 70 spaces. so the rest, if they do not go elsewhere in the city, they will go on the sidewalk, already in the spaces that are there. and this would add six more spaces which would siphon off the number even better. and i would be very happy to answer any questions you may have. also, a main point want to make is at this time we're asking that these spaces before a six- month designation, to see whether or not they will work out, whether or not there would cause any problems. pedestrian or otherwise. and if there are no problems, we would like to come back in six months before you and ask that
their term be extended. supervisor mar: i see no questions from colleagues. i was just going to say it looks like it is adding a number of spaces along worthy -- where the hyatt regency sidewalk is, to fill in the permanent space is. but it is like filling in an area so there is even more of a walkable string of different small merchants that are there. >> that is right. supervisor mar: ok, let's open this up for public comment. please come forward. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i have been in the street artist program cents a 1974. this being our 40th anniversary, we do have spaces all over the city. as the years go on, some of the space is a more viable than others. and some that used to be great are no longer as good. so this area of justin herman plaza, where we have this
beautiful arts and crafts market, is important to add this string of spaces. supervisor mar: you're like 38 years. >> this is my 39th summer. i was not there right at the beginning, but i have been there throughout. the neighborhood there has about three or four cafes. there are no retail shops there, so there's no opposition from anybody. in fact, we forget -- we frequent the cafes, and we are good customers. some of the area there is sort of a panhandlers row, and when we're selling in that area, of course our booths are up, and that leaves little room for them. so actually we're quite popular among the merchants there. this is a nice extension of our arts and crafts market, and it is very popular among the street artists. so please consider this. thank you very much. supervisor mar: can i ask you when the occupy sf when shearing
the area -- how did that impact the smaller merchants? >> it was pretty difficult. at first there were some very serious folks there in the occupy movement. pretty soon, it devolved into a homeless camp. of course, sanitation was a very large problem. we had a lot of problems with people sort of wandering through at all times of the day. it was pretty destructive to both us and our neighbors in the stores. when it was finally cleaned up and moved out, we were very happy. although most of us do agree with the philosophy of the occupy folks. the people that ultimately joined them or more of a problem than a solution to the philosophy. so we appreciate what happened ultimately in the end. but of course we think is important. thank you so much. supervisor mar: thank you. is there anyone else who would like to speak? >> good afternoon, supervisors. i have been a street artist for
about 25 years. i just wanted to say with a few more spaces, they will help about 150 people try to make a living out of that area. we need to get a space, and it is a big number for us. so i hope you consider it for us. thank you. supervisor mar: thank you so much. is there anyone else who would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. can we move this forward with a positive present that on -- recommendation without objection? >> there is an error in the title this is two selling spaces, but in the body it should be six. so we need to amended on page 1, 3. supervisor mar: i move that we make that amendment in the number, and thank you for bringing that to our attention, mr. lazar, as well.
can we take that a minute? thank you. can we move this forward without objection? our city attorney is advising that it does not require continuing. so we're moving this forward with a positive recommendation without objection. thank you. is there any other business before us? >> no, that is it. supervisor mar: thank you, everyone. meeting adjourned.
of afford to a productive conversation. we certainly on the commission are trying to do our best to figure out a way to really welcome your health and advise in that regard, so thank you very much. >> defied the had a comment on that, this has been a long process. we do appreciate the patience you have shown us in waiting for us to weigh in on this very important process, so thank you. >> would you like to introduce yourself? we can go around quickly, since we normally don't meet together. >> i am a member of the sunshine ordnance taskforce. >> i am hoping johnson, the chair of the task force.
>> members will, the vice chair of taskforce. >> i am currently the chair of the compliance committee. and of like to express my appreciation for agreeing to meet with us after what has been several years of back and forth about some complex issues. >> i am paul of the ethics commission. >>-beverly, but have you here. gosh i cheer the ethics commission. dodge vice chair of the ethics commission. >> i thought that we could start this meeting with the very productive and pressing concerns that were raised in the task force mello. and in particular, the concern that the task force raised
about the commission handling non vocal violations of the hornets. >> we will take public comment at the end. >> before we began, i wanted to address our legal assistance, the legal counsel here today. did you want to? the deputy city attorney, the sunshine ordnance taskforce, it is severely limited. in light of that, they were unable to assist us in outside of what was already over the allotted hours for the regular task force.
and the city attorney, there is a seat on the taskforce that requires you the an attorney. he is not able to participate, so we asked a member of the public to help us. ahead and your staff is here, so we may sometimes referred to him, he relied in part on his legal adviser for some of our worth. >> i would welcome, from him whenever you deem that it is inappropriate. >> i want to make sure that people knew who we may be referring to. >> i see him in the front row, and i am glad to see he is here. >> perhaps a comment about how you would like to proceed, the view like to have someone either introduce or summarize the memo, i think we have all read it and understand its content.
but for the public, a brief summary might be helpful. >> i think the person ideally suited the would be the author of the memo. if they are inclined to speak to the principal point in the memo. >> unfortunately for both of us or all of us, i am trying out some new hearing aids, and they are not as advertised, let's say. i think the first coin from my point of view is hardly radical change and that was made from the june of 2010 policy decisions to the draft that was presented to the taskforce the
june 14, 2010 minutes, i think adequately describe the long discussion haunt the policy issues that were faced by the commission at that time. and the level of input that was given by members of the public and have the task force members, ahead and the work that went in the including my own meetings with susan. so the change of course which was a dramatic and shocking, without having the same policy body that made those decisions
here in a public meeting, these are what the policy decisions are being reversed by staff. i think it is the hot problems. those of us that have a chance for the last few years. reach a the ethics commission. as mentioned, the staff is not authorized an empowered to enforce those decisions. only the ethics commission can do that. it is the policy body that made those decisions, and the staff is simply staff. it has no in a or other authority if you can be given
such authority to take the steps that it cut in the proposed regulations that were submitted in november of last year. it was pretty clear of the brown act that they couldn't do it, but i think it is also evident that it would have to be the case. and could not be otherwise. unless you have some disagreement with that position, that pretty much says what we have to say on it. >> i appreciate your comments, and as far as whether the commission has the authority to implement the regulations, we understand that we are the ones that make the decisions, staff provides recommendations, staff has done its best to serve that
role as best they can, and i think they have given considerable analysis to it. i don't think it would be productive for us to sort of a argue about or discuss his staff and the interactions have the staff and the commission, i think it would be more productive to talk substantively about your concerns, which i share, that i think the commission needs to have a rule in adjudicating and in forcing non-woeful violations. i would welcome the thoughts of my colleagues on this issue. i am also cognizant that the task force does not want or think that the commission should be free adjudicating matter is that you have decided. i see the merit in that as well. i think one of my concerns, on
the other hand, i don't think the taskforce wants us to simply be of body that doesn't all looked at what was passed on to us. when i think might be helpful as a process that lahore allow some sort of expedited procedure for non-willful violations clearly would take the task force, what they found, and put the burden on the other side. it then made the determination the violation had occurred and the other side responded to show cause why that shouldn't be enforced. i think that is consistent with 67.35, and our responsibility on the commission to enforce the ordinance, if there are referrals honda are made after a 40-day waiting period.
>> i'm a little concerned about that because it is the charge of the task force to be making determinations. in the enforcement purely is to come from the ethics commission. the enforcement should be as it is, enforcement. if you find there is a violation that is brought to you, take it out of the sunshine ordnance and take it from any other part of the work that you do. you have the determination that comes forward, there is a recommendation for certain enforcement, either a penalty or a fine. that is what you would be concerned about, you wouldn't believe adjudicating it on the enforcement and, you can hear what the issues are prior to that. once you have determined it is a violation, you improve the enforcement.
we are doing that work for you. we're doing the determination for you. that the ethics commission would provide the enforcement of the willful failure matters. at that point, there is no need to hear the entire merits of the case over again. because then if defeats the whole purpose of the process. and i think that we should move ahead with the knowledge and the way it is written in the law that the task force deals with the adjudication portion, making the order of the termination, and if it feels the need to send it off to an enforcement agency that would take action on the order, much in the way a court would issue an order and it would have to be enforced by whichever enforcement agency or body would do that. i like to see if we can proceed
along those lines, the think that is where the crux of the issue is here that we have had ongoing issues with. >> certainly, i agree that with the problem you brought up, but i think we need to backtrack a little better and we will think very carefully. there is a summary of what he thought he was hearing, and our most recent memo on third and was a hearing such things as you believed that the ethics commission does have a role in certain non-will violations, perhaps. that was proposed in the november regulations. the views more closely
connacht's you also could see a role for the ethics commission under 6735 for enforcing indeed orders of determination, and that is probably, the crux of a lot of this, that it gives you the authority to help us, the members of the public received the documents and are for the members of the public, and the public meeting laws are enforced, and so forth. i really wonder, if we could, focused on that issue, first of all. enforcement. so much else hinges on that deciding issue. >> and go back a little bit further, one of the things we are not addressing, which we don't know what your stance is on this particular issue, that
the memo and that is our recommendation from the staff, who discusses this idea of an elected official alzheimer's, department heads, and managerial employees. when you say you would be willing to -- you are open or want to enforce the non-willful violations, that is going to be for all of those? if you limit it as you did in bejeweled gomez case, it eliminates the enforcement for a huge number of city departments and employees. it is an enormous number of people. i think we need be here from the ethics commissioners about that. i went back and reviewed the minutes in some portions of the gomez case, and toward the end
of that, there is a discussion were your executive director states horvath 67-34, what was in question in that case korea felt like you were unable to actually taken action against that particular individual was a policy decision and that the commissioners could have the staff research data. and i don't know if that was something that you have them do and that is how we ended up with this new sort of stance in the november issue, and i am not exactly sure from reviewing that where the stand was on a, i know that at the time, it was decided that you couldn't take action, but if it is a policy issue, and i'm not sure why it was the only choice at that time. when you say that, can you clarify? >> ms. washburn raised the issue
of focusing on how and if the commission is open to ahead and the handling non-will violations, as johnson raises the issue of willful violations that are beyond the department heads and elected officials. in my view, the second question first, i am in favor of the commission handling non-willful violations. again, i think that based on and the ordinance, and based on the tenth hole of their and the language, i think that is something that you can handle. as far as the mechanics of the woodwork, we would have to work that out, but i would welcome of the thoughts of the fellow commissioners on either of those two issues.
>> i agree, i am sympathetic to the concept of dealing and with official misconduct by at those other than in the department heads, managerial all elected officials, managerial city employee categories, the strain the i had with of the case that was raise here is i am not sure it was so much a policy discussion has been felt constrained by the language of the ordinance itself, 5734, and i think as were we started thinking that maybe another way to handle it is to take a look at the definition of managerial city employees and maybe redefining it. it was my recollection, not just that we had a policy willy-nilly and thought that these are the only categories that we can handle, it